The Covid Puppets

An Obituary for the Austrian Republic, 1918-2021

I haven’t commented on the descent into (pseudo-) fascism of Austria in the past week. Things were moving so fast that one would need perhaps a Twitter account to do so (and my trust in that particular company isn’t particularly high).

A lot about these developments has been written already (see esp. here), and I don’t want to merely add to this chorus, hence I elected to compose something like an obituary for the Austrian second republic.

Born (again) in April 1945 in the last days of the ‘Third Reich’, parliamentary government, although already severely under pressure during the past 18-19 months, finally gave way to a new form of governance, (medical) tyranny by executive fiat.

Details of death: neglect by the citizenry, led (if that’s actually the right word) by a coterie of inept, if spine-less tinpot authoritarians who are obviously way too inept to grasp what they are doing.

I invite you to share your thoughts and condolences in the comment section below.

The First Republic (1918-38)

On 12 Nov. 1918, a first Austrian Republic came into existence, and it was born in the death throes of what would eventually become known as the First World War. From the beginning, that small-ish ‘successor state’ of the Habsburg Empire created controversy: imagined by its founders—see the monument to the republic’s foundation in Vienna below—as the Republic of German-Austria (Deutschösterreich), which was conceived as the home for (most) German-speaking citizens of the now-defunct Habsburg Empire.

While the victors of WW1 didn’t accede to these demands (and the neighbouring countries, esp. Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Yugoslavia also disagreed with the borders), the second (first) Austrian republic was eventually established by the Treaty of Saint-Germain in 1919.

The republic, still-born as it was from the begin, suffered a series of existential blows: from hyper-inflation in the early 1920s (which destroyed much of the accumulated wealth) through a general strike that morphed into a fit of looting and destruction following a miscarriage of justice in 1927 (in short: armed paramilitaries killed two people and the perpetrators, because they were government-friendly paramilitaries, were found ‘not guilty’ by the judiciary) to the Great Depression, which hit Central Europe in the early 1930s.

By 1933, with rising pressure from Nazi Germany, Austrian chancellor Engelbert Dollfuß installed an authoritarian régime, the so-called Ständestaat, and ruled as dictator until his assassination by Nazi plotters a year later. (In-between, in February 1934, the Social Democrats and their paramilitary wing, the Schutzbund, had risen against the Dollfuß régime, but the government crushed this uprising).

After Dollfuß’ death, power passed to Kurt Schuschnigg, who cracked down on the Social Democrats and Nazis alike, and while persecuting the latter was kind of popular (but grew less so over time), the former was the largest party at that time, and this ultimately contributed to the eventual downfall and annexation of Austria in March 1938.

And herein we may discern at least one ‘lesson’ from the first republic: if under pressure from a powerful foreign actor and its domestic ‘fifth column’, don’t eliminate your political opposition, for this fundamentally weakens the entire edifice.

Interlude: WW2 and the Problems of Austrian Identity

From March 1938 through April 1945, Austria didn’t exist. Austrians-turned-Germans contributed to the crimes committed by the Nazi régime, which was by and large supported to the bitter end by the overwhelming majority of (former) Austrians, or Austro-Germans.

It was only with the passing of time, in particular after the tide of the war turned, that a debate (of sorts) of what would come after the Second World War began. Here, we note, in passing, the Allied propaganda-political ‘Moscow Declaration’, which held that Austria was ‘the first free country to fall a victim to Hitlerite aggression’. At the same time, the Allied powers held ‘that she has a responsibility, which she cannot evade, for participation in the war at the side of Hitlerite Germany, and that in the final settlement account will inevitably be taken of her own contribution to her liberation’.

While the first part was as blatant a lie as any, which may be understandable as the wartime propaganda it was (and perhaps it was even understood as such), the second part is even more insidious, for not only does it contradict the first part, to certain degrees, but it further raises (unresolved) questions of responsibility: who or what was to be held responsible, ‘Austria’ or ‘Austrians’?

Thus, if Austria was a ‘free country’ before German troops crossed the border in March 1938, what would that make the Austrofascist régime of Dollfuß and Schuschnigg?

Furthermore, what to do with a population that, by and large, was treated as a ‘conquered’ people and a ‘liberated’ state at the same time by the victors of the Second World War?

These contradictions were not resolved before the Red Army first crossed the German (formerly Austrian) borders in winter 1945, and its implications were painfully avoided after the conclusion of hostilities in spring of that year.

The Second Republic, 1945-2021

In late April 1945, while the ruins of Vienna were smoldering, a number of political leaders from both large camps, conservative (People’s Party, or ÖVP) and socialist/social-democratic (SPÖ) alike, came together and conspired to play the Allied powers. The leading figure was Karl Renner (1870-1950), who was the first republic’s chancellor from 1918-20 and whose political acumen was instrumental in the establishment of the second republic in 1945.

With the Soviet troops outside, Renner and his counterpart (and eventual successor) Leopold Figl invited the Communist Party to join a provisional government, which proclaimed the restoration of an Austrian republic on 27 April 1945. The provisional government remained in power until 20 Dec. of that year when national elections were held.

During these eight months, the new government struggled to gain acceptance and recognition from the US-led western powers who were initially very suspicious of the entire operation: Renner, (in-) famously, had supported the annexation, of Anschluss, of Austria in 1938, and in addition the new government was initially supported by the USSR. Eventually, the US-led western powers came around to accepting the new government, which fits in neatly with the emerging ideological-in-name confrontation known as the Cold War.

I will spare the reader most of the details of the subsequent decades, it suffices to mention that, although Austria was ‘the first free country to fall a victim to Hitlerite aggression’, it remained occupied (liberated) by the four major powers until 1955, paid hefty reparations (which the US-led western allies eventually let go), and its leadership also paid a certain amount of lip-service to de-nazification. That latter part was particularly problematic, for if taken to its logical conclusion, the majority of political, economic, church, and other leaders would be implicated, hence it was quietly discontinued, with the tacit support of western governments.

The most important addition to the Austrian consciousness and identity after 1945 was the creation of what is called ‘victim theory’ (Opferthese), by which is meant that the Austrian leaders after 1945 proclaimed the Allied Moscow Declaration as self-evidently true and referred to it as if it were gospel. In a truly Ibsen-like fashion, this ‘life-lie’ became elevated to reason of state, for it allowed Austria and Austrians to escape most of the responsibilities that same declaration had bestowed upon them, and, of course, this would have been impossible if the US-led western powers hadn’t conspired with the second republic in that regard. As such, Austria’s post-1945 history is both a telling account of duplicity and a warning about believing one’s own edifice of lies.

These contradictions were not resolved before the Cold War came to a close. To their credit, Austria’s leaders are committed to making things, if not ‘right’, but at least ‘better’. Chancellor Franz Vranitzky, in the early 1990s, spoke to the Israeli parliament about Austrians’ shared responsibilities, and in 1995 a ‘National Fund…for Victims of National Socialism’ was created.

Finally, mention must be made of Austria’s eventual commitment to join the ‘other losers’ of the Second World War around the end of the Cold War. Most continental powers in western Europe had become mere pawns by 1945, and while Germany was (is) at least a major, if not ‘great’, power, its partition in 1945/49 significantly curtailed its potential. Austria, of course, was a dwarf, not even a pawn, after WW2, but due to its strategic location, the Allied powers determined, in 1955, that it must remain ‘neutral’, i.e., Austria was positioned in-between the US-led western and the Soviet-led eastern blocs.

By the late 1980s, however, Soviet power was weakened to such degrees, and Austrian politicians determined to join the ‘other losers’, which had founded the European Economic Community in the 1950s. Enlarged repeatedly until the 1980s, a further transformation of European politics was in the making. This would eventually become known as the ‘European Union’, and Austria acceded to it in 1995. (I will address the EU in due time, but I won’t focus on this particular concatenation of events now.)

EU membership transforms national sovereignty in significant ways, for the EU’s primary mode of operation may be summarised as ‘integration via regulatory streamlining’. Decisions are made by a supra-national entity (the EU Commission), which then ‘proposes’ new rules and the like, which member states then have to adopt by passing enabling legislation; this is known as ‘transposition’, and its main consequence is the gradual, if non-linear, abolition of national sovereignty and popular democracy over time. (Similarly, I won’t address the EU’s structural, if notorious, ‘democratic deficit’ here, but it suffices to say that it’s a strawman, for a supra-state treaty organisation such as the EU doesn’t need to be ‘democratic’ in principle, whatever that means, but this is another of these discussions for another time.)

Why do I bring this up in this piece? It matters because when the Coronavirus Crisis came around, Austrians—like citizens in democratic countries elsewhere, esp. in Europe—were already well-accustomed to rule-by-decree and the loss-in-all-but-name of democratic representation via parliament.

While the Austrian form of republican parliamentarism was quite a sham from the get-got, at least after 1945—keep in mind: in April 1945 party leaders conspired with each other to (re-) imagine the state, i.e., the Republic was proclaimed after party leaders had divided the spoils amongst themselves—the ‘new’ form of governance that exists these days is nothing that differs fundamentally from the norms and practices in place for the past generation: unelected officials proclaim a goal or venture, laws and regulations are drafted in the aftermath, and the theoretically sovereign people are, eventually (perhaps no more) asked to ‘validate’ earlier decisions.

As such, the Covid Coup, overseen by the likes of the Austrian politicians over the course of the past weeks, is actually nothing fundamentally ‘new’ or even substantially ‘different’ from the decay of popular sovereignty of at least the past generation. As such, it is hardly surprising that, so far, dissent is virtually absent in the public sphere (I know, censorship plays a role), but these ‘practices’ of governance have become so deeply ingrained and normalised over the past decades that it’s hard to notice any difference.

This might sound outrageous to you, but do keep the following context in mind: rule by executive fiat, or the ‘outsourcing’ (evasion) of responsibility on part of local, regional/state, or even national politicians by claiming ‘this isn’t coming from us, it’s something we need to do because Brussels (or Washington, for that matter)’ is frequently invoked to press for issues that a sizable chunk, if not the majority, of citizens disagrees with.

Hence, the disillusionment with democratic governance in general, the lack of trust in institutions, and the eventual acquiescence into ever-more curtailments of civil liberties via ‘anti-terrorism’ legislation (aimed mainly at the surveillance of domestic dissent), the abrogation, via the declaration of a state of ‘medical martial law’, of a good part of the bill of rights (freedom to assemble and of expression, to say nothing about the public ‘shaming’ and threats to individual liberties and sovereignty over one’s own body now that ‘vax mandates’ are supposed to be instituted).

The Austrian case is certainly no outlier in any of these and many other related issues, so why bother, you may ask? I propose to you that the Austrian case is instructive as it serves as a kind of bellwether—if it can happen there, in an allegedly rich, western, and democratic country, I fear that this will happen elsewhere, too. Already, we’re seeing a kind of neo-fascist ‘envy’ among Austria’s neighbours which are all moving towards comparable policies.

In addition, fascist-authoritarian mindsets are (re-) emerging among especially those segments of the population that have bought into the government narratives, however shifting and precarious, who appear to project their own virtue-signalling hypocrisy to the third of the population that is apparently still clear-eyed about at least some of these issues. I don’t know what happens next, but given the most recent moves of politicians and their lackey in the media (which is supported by extensive government handouts for the past two years), these things don’t bode well.

Do care about Austria, because the last time that particular country descended into fascism, things didn’t turn out too well for the more than 60m people who died/were killed/exterminated during the Second World War.

The Second Republic is no more, and we should bemoan its passing, but we should also keep in mind that whatever its faults and mistakes, for a time its leaders and people still cared about civic rights and duties. This time has passed, and the republic is gone.

We should commemorate its passing, but what is more, we should think about what comes after the current ‘interregnum’ has passed. History continues, and there is no way that these absurdities, built on lies and malfeasance, will last forever. However long the descending night will continue, the sun of rights and liberties will rise again.

Afterthoughts

The image accompanying this essay is the monument dedicated to the erection of the first republic; this picture was taken in 2008 on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the foundation, and it expresses this moment quite well, I think.

For more than three decades, right-wing politicians of the Freedom Party decrying the erosion of national sovereignty associated with the triumph of ‘neoliberalism’ outlined above, have publicly espoused the creation of a ‘Third Republic’. Reminiscent of, perhaps even desired to resemble, creation of a ‘Third Reich’ (that criticism was certainly levelled at Jörg Haider and his ilk), however one’s personal feelings about these associations, the point of individual and collective rights, duties, and interest in one’s nation, do appear more warranted and justified today than they did when these notions were first floated in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the context of Austria’s accession to the EU. I will explore these notions further in future posts, for here, it may suffice to note, however briefly, that it is the same far-right Freedom Party that is the only ‘partially non-systemic’ opposition party in Austria these days. I remain wary of their trustworthiness, but at this particular moment of time, their criticism of the authoritarian descent into madness and, yes, tyranny, is perhaps all the peoples of Europe have left (note the similar notions among at least some of the right-wing parties elsewhere).