Information in English
„Die Zeit“: Martin is a „new political prototype“
On the 31.08.2006, the German weekly paper “Die Zeit” published an in-depth article by political scientist Anton Pelinka, about EU Member of Parliament H. P. Martin, “a new phenomenon for Europe.
Die Zeit, 31.08.2006, no. 36
Me down there – you up there!
He is neither left-wing nor right-wing. EU Member of Parliament Hans Peter Martin is a new type of populist. Will he be the “Chancellor-wright”?
His candidature is still deemed a negligible incident with the European framework. Maybe unfairly. Austria has given the continent a new political prototype, one to which the usual labels do not apply.
Hans Peter Martin, the EU Parliament rebel, is a populist. No, he is neither a right- nor left-wing populist. He disassociates himself from Peter Westenthaler or Hans-Christian Strache – but also shows little sympathy for the social populist variant, with which Robert Fico in Slovakia or Hugo Chávez in Venezuela beguile their voters. He does not mobilise the locals against foreigners. He does not use the National Socialist past to win over the quarter- and semi-Nazis in the country. And he doesn’t call for an assault on the palaces of the rich and the super rich.
Martin does however have a clear concept of the enemy: the “political class” whom he accuses of trying to gain privileges. This is a concept which he associates with both right- and left-wing populists. His battle-cry: “Us down there – you up there”. That this slogan has political rather than economical meaning, differentiates him from left-wing populism; that he does not allow it to broaden into a xenophobic campaign separates him from the right.
In other words: Hans Peter Martin is a populist in the middle.
He has much in common with the Populists at both ends of the political spectrum – among other things the front against the EU. Until now, one could assume that the Right and Left – as in the French EU Constitutional Referendum of 2005 – would unite against the political middle in an anti-EU-Alliance. Now, Martin is trying to take advantage of the discontent with the EU from exactly this central position.
Austria has been the rehearsal stage for the European politics before: between 1986 and 1999, Jörg Haiders FPÖ became the most successful right-wing populist party in Europe. In 2000, with the government involvement of the FPÖ, the Republic ventured into European newfound-land – the reactions were according to expectations.
The FPÖ´s triumph was followed by a rapid freefall and division. The populism experiment appeared to have failed. Now, Martin is trying to set a new track record for Austrian populism, and he is doing this from a position which many feel does not provide a breeding ground for simplification. A new phenomenon for Europe.
Martin has a role model outside of Europe: when George Bush Snr. failed to be re-elected in the 1992 presidential elections, having lost to the democratic challenger, Bill Clinton, who got 43 per cent of the votes, the influence Ross Perot and his Reform Party was considerable. The Reform Party was even able to win the Governor elections in Minnesota – after which, however, their star also began to fade.
Both central populists have national protectionism as a main feature in common: the Texan computer billionaire Perot distinguished himself above all in his fight against the North-American Free-Trade Zone (Nafta).Perot was in line with the traditional democratic association of trade unions AFL/CIO – and with right-wing of the Republicans. Martin has not only been publicly effective against the expense-account types of the EU, he is also one of the forceful opponents of both past and future EU expansion. And he has never been a fan of the EU constitution.
For both Perot and Martin, it was and is about protecting national sovereignty against further maceration. In no way have either used or do they use racist slogans to do this – something which distinguishes them from the far-right. But both see a fundamentally negative trend ion globalisation – and in this, Populists of all colours agree.
A new type of post-modern quasi-party without apparatus and helpers.
Both work with a democratic approach, which is, above all, directed against elements of representative democracy – against the “party-states” for instance, which Martin so deplores. And both see the expansion of direct democracy as a suitable means to improve the quality of political process. They believe, that the people should not have to accept the fat cats in government and parliament view that they should be happy to have at least those kind of representatives.
Every populist is very quick to appeal to “the people”. As if it were clear who is meant by this, as if “the people” were a homogenous unit. This leaves little room for complicated contexts. This leads to the over-estimation that politics need only strive to overcome social grievances I order to reduce crime or mass-unemployment through a political act of volition.
Hans Peter Martin had already founded his own party before the European parliamentary elections two years ago. This, however, only existed in order to ensure legality – cash flow. The HPM-party has no apparatus, a fact which differentiates them from traditional parties.
Can a party without apparatus be successful? This will be decided on October 1st. Martin is running a new style of election campaign via the media and using very little of the traditional methods such as posters, advertisement and canvassers. The Martin-Party is a new type of party, a post-modern quasi-party.
“Via the media” is of course an inadmissible simplification. Specific media coverage is meant. For years, Martin has been able to use the platform provided by to him by the “Kronen-Zeitung”. The popular illustrated “News” was and is a reliable amplifier for his messages. His attempt at success using these two medians and no party-apparatus succeeded at the European parliamentary elections in 2004. However it is clear to him that this achievement – third place behind the two major parties – can not simply be transferred to the National Assembly elections.
This time it is about the chancellorship and about who and what coalition should govern Austria. If and to what extent Martin – stuck between Schüssel, Gusenbauer and the Green Party who value their chances for a role as “Chancellor-wright” – can hold his own remains to be seen.
For whom the candidature of the civil-candidate from Vorarlberg is detrimental and for whom it is beneficial is, however, easier to assess. On the one hand, Martin will, when it comes to votes, be damaging to the Strache FPÖ and the Westenthaler BZÖ. On the other hand, it could also be damaging to the party which the journalists helped bring into politics in 1999: the SPÖ. Martin knows how to win over potential non-voters and may even provide competition for the ÖVP here and there. It can, however, be ruled out that he will pose any kind of serious threat to the Green Party´s votes.
Martin is especially appealing to social levels, which are also strongly represented by the FPÖ and BZÖ: less educated men who fear the opening up of Europe. These modernisation underdogs form a strong segment of the Euro-sceptics, and for this reason, a thematic as well as social parallel between the FPÖ, BZÖ and Martin is take for granted.
Martin will not be as successful in appealing to the middle-class which oscillates between the Red and the Green Parties. The fact that a politician can have such a close relationship to a paper like the “Krone” is dubious ebough for them. But the older proletariats who – unlike the younger ones – still represent a reliable SPÖ clientele, are also susceptible to the simpler message presented by the Martin candidature. As a result, Martin´s candidacy also proves a threat to the SPÖ.
However, although Martin is indirectly using the Green Party to increase their votes, he could also be responsible for the dissolving into thin air of a historical chance for the eco-party. Should the Populist from the middle reach the four per cent mark, he would considerably reduce the Green Party´s chances as a majority party to make a decisive contribution to government negotiations. In this case a large coalition would be very likely.
The more parties are represented in the National Assembly, the more difficult a coalition between the Green Party and the ÖVP or SPÖ. In this event, in order to assume responsibility for the government, a coalition between Red or Black and the Green Party would have to be stronger than a coalition of the opposing parties, in which one of the major parties would link up with the FPÖ, BZÖ and Martin Party – a less likely scenario.
Hans Peter Martin, a majority provider?
Whether Martin himself will take over the role as majority provider remains open. This however cannot be ruled out: he could be the third party in a coalition between one of the major parties and the Green Party, or he could support a minority government. Aside from the fact that his EU stance would hardly be acceptable for the Euro-optimists in the Green Party, and difficult to accept for the major parties, the question remains whether the role as “Chancellor-wright” is in Hans Peter Martin´s interest.
The downfall for the FPÖ began when they, as governing party, were measured on their oppositional rhetoric. This is why the new liberal party leader Strache does not want to be a part of a chancellor coalition. The assumption of governmental responsibility by a newly formed populist party would therefore be very risky. This, however, does not exclude the possibility, that Martin, with his need for recognition, could still be tempted and an invitation to join a coalition government could be forthcoming. This, above all, does not exclude the possibility that he could ensure a minority government parliamentary majority by means of an acquiescence accord. The stability of such a governmental constellation, in which a new populist phenomenon would first have to distinguish itself, would, however, not be very confidence inspiring.