Big win for FPÖ: what does it mean for Europe?

Populists don't necessarily come to power even when they win elections, emphasises Der Standard:

“Whether it was in the Netherlands a year ago, in Belgium and France before the summer, or in the European elections in June – each time the anti-European right proclaimed its big comeback. But we can see that even major victories in elections are no guarantee that such parties will be able to take power or even join a governing coalition. ... It's not that easy for national populist leaders to become heads of government. Wilders and de Wever, as well as Le Pen's right-hand man Jordan Bardella, all failed in this endeavour. There is no doubt that the FPÖ has won a major electoral victory. But in a democracy it takes more than that to be politically successful. You have to be able to win over your political opponents as partners.”

Brussels must not simply go back to business as usual, says The Guardian:

“In Brussels, surprisingly sanguine EU officials have pointed out that the political centre retains control of the European parliament. ... Such assurances ring hollow. The discontent generated by the cost of living crisis and economic stagnation are providing parties that should be beyond the pale with a platform and an opportunity. They are using it to achieve unprecedented success with arguments that scapegoat migrants and minorities, present the green transition as an expensive and unnecessary imposition on the less well-off, and disparage core European values as elite virtue signalling. From those charged with defending and promoting those values, the politics of business as usual is no longer adequate to the moment.”

Tageblatt points out that the FPÖ has been shaping the political discourse in Austria for years:

“Constant exposure to hate messages in the public sphere has led to a general dulling of the senses. When the FPÖ waxes on about 'remigration', hardly anyone really gets upset. Things that the AfD would cause outrage with in Germany have become the normality in Austria. Sunday's result clearly shows that the far right has long since become mainstream here. A party founded by former Nazis secures first place. The shift to the right in Europe continues.”

Népszava fears a growing Russian influence in Europe:

“We don't want to accuse all the parties in the Patriots for Europe group of having a blatantly pro-Russian stance, but the Austrian FPÖ is one of the most Russia-friendly members alongside [Hungary's ruling party] Fidesz. ... When Herbert Kickl, the current FPÖ leader, was still interior minister, he wanted to set up a shadow intelligence service. It later emerged that this organisation would have been headed by a person who had spied for Russia. If Kickl were to become the next Austrian Chancellor this would pose a security risk for all Europe.”

Polityka fears potential consequences for the EU:

“If Kickl actually manages to become chancellor, Viktor Orbán would also be one of the big winners of the election. His Patriots for Europe was created as a group in the EU Parliament, but also as a club of current and future head of state and government that gives the Hungarian leader blocking power at the European Council level. So far, Orbán has for the most part blocked initiatives he disapproved of on his own. If Kickl became chancellor he would gain an important ally – and Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa would have to considerably up their game. They would have to convince not just one but at least two EU leaders – probably in return for something.”

The principle of decisions by unanimous consensus needs to be revised, demands Ilta-Sanomat:

“Hungary has already managed to delay EU decisions on support for Ukraine several times on its own, and if the far-right, which sympathises with Russia, gains more clout in other EU countries, there is a risk that the EU decision-making process, which requires unanimity, will be completely blocked. The Austrian FPÖ's election victory is an urgent reminder to the EU to reform its decision-making principles and move from unanimity to majority voting on important issues. Where Europe's security is at stake, individual member states - and extremist movements - must not be allowed to throw a spanner into the works.”

Club Z voices concern about Bulgaria and Romania's accession to the Schengen Area, a move which Austria had long blocked:

“Both countries are suffering major economic losses due to the waiting times at their land borders. So both Bucharest and Sofia will be closely watching the formation of a new cabinet in Austria. ... The FPÖ won the elections with slogans like 'no more foreigners' and 'complete border closure'. This makes the idea of a rapid accession to the Schengen Area for Bulgaria and Romania seem like a pie in the sky. However, all is not lost. Hungary, which now holds the EU Council presidency, is expected to offer both countries full accession on October 10. At least that's what has been promised.”

Die Presse takes a look at the FPÖ's top results and public image:

“Herbert Kickl has succeeded in realising Jörg Haider's plan, namely to replace the once untouchable major parties SPÖ and ÖVP as the strongest party with a record result. It is both astonishing and logical that of all people Kickl, a less prominent figure, has achieved this historic success. ... The FPÖ is now the rallying point for a heterogeneous group of the dissatisfied, opponents of the system and/or reactionaries, regardless of its leading candidate. ... From the outside, despite its painful history, Austria remains a pioneer for the rise of the populist right, which deliberately plays with taboos, breaks them and adopts an unclear stance towards the cornerstones of democracy and the rule of law.”

The starting position for the ÖVP could not have been worse, Der Standard writes:

“People are dissatisfied and pessimistic about the future. Seen in this light, the ÖVP's result is no surprise. ... Lead candidate Karl Nehammer made a solid impression in TV debates, presenting himself as the one who could bring enlightenment to the nation. During the flood disaster he played the role of the efficient crisis manager. That gave him brownie points. However, the ÖVP failed to convince when it came to combating inflation. On the issue of immigration it has moved even further to the right: a party that writes in its programme that asylum seekers should have all their valuables taken away from them is barely distinguishable from the FPÖ. This did not pay off: all those in favour of such a policy have long been voting for the FPÖ.”

Hvg calls for self-reflection on the part of the current governing party:

“If one party can be held responsible for the rise of the FPÖ then it's the ÖVP, which has been in government continuously for more than 30 years. Of course, it's not that simple, because the far right is gaining strength all over the world, trust in the state is declining everywhere, and the FPÖ first benefited from Covid, then from inflation, the energy crisis and the migration crisis. However, a little self-reflection would not go amiss for the ÖVP, as its candidate for chancellor (and current chancellor) Karl Nehammer has conceded. The strong centre that the ÖVP advertised on its election posters has collapsed.”

Rzeczpospolita compares the way the extreme right is treated in Germany and Austria:

“The difference to Germany is that up to now the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has no chance of winning the Bundestag elections because it is lagging behind the CDU/CSU at the federal level. Moreover, in Germany the AfD is being sidelined by the other parties. The situation is different in Austria. Although the left-wing parties want nothing to do with the far right, the ÖVP is willing to cooperate with the FPÖ.”

G4Media.ro both warns and appeases:

“Like other ultra-right/radical/populist party leaders in Europe, the FPÖ leader is Russia-friendly and rejects support for Ukraine. ... Moreover, under Kickl's leadership the FPÖ has adopted an increasingly revisionist stance on the country's National Socialist past and is fuelling a semi-racist and Islamophobic discourse. But despite the FPÖ having secured first place, it's unlikely that Kickl will become Chancellor. ÖVP leader Karl Nehammer, the only party leader who is prepared to form a coalition with the FPÖ (as in 1999 and 2017) categorically rejects Kickl as chancellor. ... Kickl also has a fierce enemy in Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen, a staunch pro-European who has the constitutional right to reject a candidate for chancellor.”

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung also doubts that the FPÖ will move into the Chancellery:

“On the one hand the FPÖ has radicalised its content under Kickl. The election programme contains points that break with the Austrian system. Kickl is openly striving for 'Orbanisation'. When it comes to foreign policy, he wants to put the country on an anti-European and pro-Kremlin course. On the other hand one can safely say that the party's track record in government is abysmal. ... Five years ago even the chancellor at the time, Sebastian Kurz, declared 'Enough is enough'. ... In terms of content, his government's performance with the Freedom Party was poor: most of the reforms were just patchwork, or they were rescinded by the courts, or they turned out to be just a PR stunt.”

In a Facebook post, political strategist Ruslan Rokhov predicts that FPÖ and the Greens will be left out:

“After the parliamentary elections in Austria, a lengthy process of coalition negotiations lies ahead. A renewed coalition between the ÖVP and the Greens seems impossible due to the lack of votes as well as significant differences between the two current coalition partners. It looks like a three-party coalition will be formed for the first time in Austria's history – between the ÖVP, SPÖ and Neos. The liberals could replace the Greens as a junior partner, albeit in a broader coalition.”