After the far-right victory: what's next for the Austrian government?

Elections in Austria are over. The Austrian far-right celebrated a historical victory by winning the most votes following a similar success in the European Parliamentary elections in July this year for the first time ever.

But what came as a huge electoral success does not translate into power-sharing as it happened in 2017, when the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) became a coalition partner of the centre-right Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP).

Usually, the federal president gives the mandate to form a government to the strongest political party. While this is not enshrined in the constitution, it has been the political norm since 1945. Not so in 2024, when FPÖ made a historic win to become the strongest party. This time around, Austrian president Alexander Van der Bellen opted to invite the second strongest party, the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP), to start negotiations as every single party ruled out going into coalition with the FPÖ.

For many conservatives, this was an “irresponsible” move. This would only further the resentment against the “system,” as the FPÖ calls the rest of the established political opponents. Some conservatives might even prefer a coalition with the far-right, with whom they rather share many of its economic as well as anti-immigration and anti-Islam views.

But if the ÖVP opts to govern with the FPÖ, it would hardly be able to claim the chancellery. The ÖVP profits from the overall exclusion of the FPÖ from power-sharing, as it allows the ÖVP to run the new government, although it weakens its leverage vis-à-vis potential coalition partners, including the Social Democrats (SPÖ) and potential third parties, which could be either the Greens or rather the Liberals (NEOS), who are put in a position to demand much more from a weaker leader, who just became the second strongest.

And what happens to the FPÖ? The far-right has since been able to victimise itself against the backdrop of this exclusion.

With 57 members in parliament (conservatives following with 51 and social democrats with 41), the party has a chance to nominate the first president of the National Council, who occupies a high symbolic value being the second most important political position in the polity, receive more financial and human resources that can expand the FPÖ’s influence in Austrian society.

But being excluded from power-sharing solely due to its chairman Herbert Kickl also creates distress in the ranks of the FPÖ that feel that the party should not depend on the fate of one person.

At the same time, staying out of power might prove much more fruitful in the long run.

In times of high inflation, the war in Ukraine, and the long-term impacts of the pandemic, irresponsible opposition politics might be the easiest to do. And for the ÖVP to find common ground with the Social Democrats as well as a third party, be it the Liberals (the most realistic partner due to its economic program) or the Greens, might be much more demanding than fulfilling and might even create an early break-up of the coalition, which might create the best opportunity structure for the FPÖ to make even more gains.

If the FPÖ has proven anything in the last few years, it is that it is here to stay in a powerful position.

While Kickl was able to lead his party to electoral victory, he remains one of the least sympathetic politicians. In other words: The FPÖ does not depend on their leaders, but represents the most powerful force in Austrian politics today.

And parts of its policy platform will be implemented with the ÖVP, which has coopted many of its policy claims anyway — another factor that legitimises the FPÖ in the long term and one reason why many former voters of the ÖVP had drifted to the FPÖ.

While a stable coalition between the ÖVP, the SPÖ, and the Liberals seems difficult to imagine, it might work if all partners accept a give-and-take that allows all members to fulfil some of their promises. If it fails, there might be still a chance for a renewal of a coalition between the Conservatives and the far-right, albeit with other chairmen.