___________________________________________ What's going on in your world? Find Out. Visit Stratfor's Global Intelligence Center http://www.stratfor.com/world/default.htm ___________________________________________ COMING SOON ON STRATFOR.COM Russia is on the verge of sweeping economic and political changes. On Tuesday, Stratfor.com [ http://www.stratfor.com/ ] launches Russia2000, a four-part series which examines the changes now taking shape and their impact on Russia and the world in the coming year. __________________________________ STRATFOR.COM Global Intelligence Update Weekly Analysis November 1, 1999 Austria, Switzerland and the Politics of Nationalism Summary: About one-quarter of Swiss and Austrian voters cast ballots for right-wing nationalist parties. This shift in public opinion during a period of relative prosperity is startling and seems to make little sense if we think in terms of traditional, economic-based politics. However, if we think in terms of a new dynamic, in which nations are increasingly trying to preserve their national identities in the face of mass migrations and multi-national institutions, then what happened in Switzerland and Austria might be seen as a harbinger of things to come. Analysis: In late October, the Swiss People's Party, led by Christoph Blocher, won 22.6 percent of the vote in a national election, making it the second-largest party in the lower house of the Swiss Parliament. Earlier in October, the Austrian Freedom Party, led by Joerg Haider, won 27.2 percent of the vote, making it the second largest as well. What makes these two events noteworthy is that these are commonly referred to as extreme right-wing parties. They share certain core tenets. In particular, they are hostile to immigration. They also believe multinational institutions - such as the European Union (EU), and in the case of the Swiss Party, the United Nations - pose a threat to national identity and control over national institutions. In other words, a massive nationalist movement has emerged in these two countries. Such parties have been present in Europe for years. In France, the National Front was quite successful in elections. In Italy, right- wing parties won over 10 percent of the vote in the last election; though they have declined somewhat, they are still significant domestic political forces. But the October elections in Austria and Switzerland have redefined the issue. No economic preconditions for the rise of mass nationalist parties appear to be in place, making the vote more startling. Switzerland's unemployment rate is less than 3 percent, while Austria's is about 4.4 percent. Their economies are solid, if not spectacular, and they have not recently been defeated in war. The conventional explanation for right-wing populist nationalism is massive social dislocation caused by economic failure or military defeat. Understanding why one-quarter of the citizens of these solid, prosperous and peaceful nations should vote for these parties poses an interesting question. Let's begin by making the radical assumption that Swiss and Austrians voted for these parties because they agreed with their political platforms. Both parties take the view that the two countries are losing control of their national institutions. They see two threats. The first is massive immigration. In Switzerland, for example, 20 percent of all residents are immigrants. In Austria, one estimate is that 10 percent of the population are illegal immigrants, from throughout Eastern Europe and with large numbers from Turkey. Tensions would be understandable if unemployment were high and natives were competing with foreigners for scarce jobs, with the competition pushing down wage rates. Not only is this not the case, but quite the contrary, the immigrants are economically useful and even necessary, working menial jobs that natives don't want, at wages that natives wouldn't accept. Forcing immigrants out of the country makes little economic sense. Nevertheless, a quarter of the voters would at the very least severely limit the influx of immigrants, and many would actually support deportation. In order to understand this apparent irrationality, it is important to understand the other dimension of Blocher's and Haider's platform. Both oppose multinational institutions in general and the EU in particular. The EU was formed to maximize economic well-being by creating a single, integrated European economy. In order to create that, national sovereignty had to be relegated, to some extent at least, to the European Union's massive bureaucracy. The relationship between this bureaucracy's power and that of the national government is unclear. But, there is clearly a sense that fundamental decisions about the nature of national life within the EU have shifted from the nation to the super-national authority. Recently, opponents of the United Kingdom's rules on homosexuals in the military appealed for European intervention on the grounds that the rules opposed Europe's human rights covenants and that those covenants superseded the UK's national authority. Whatever one's views of the particular issue, advocates of European intervention are seeking to diminish the nation-states' authority over national issues. On a thousand less visible or controversial issues, the power of Brussels over national decision-making processes is increasing. This increases a sense of powerlessness and vulnerability on the part of many. On the one side, there are those who argue that optimizing economic performance in Europe is the most important issue. If that is the case, then it follows that anything increasing friction between nations undermines the optimization process. The process of creating a unified Europe inevitably undermines the power that national governments have over their own destinies. For the business classes of Europe, this is a matter of minimal concern. Their thinking has been global for decades. On the other side, there are masses of Europeans who do not belong to the business classes and for whom economic optimization is not the central issue. Their issues are primarily cultural. They wish to preserve their unique national culture against internationalization. They believe the preservation of culture is threatened in two ways. First, the massive influx of immigrants threatens to undermine cultural identity. Second, multinational organizations transfer power away from the national processes to uncontrollable international processes, and to the business classes that control those processes. Austrians and Swiss fear they will become strangers in their own countries, unable to control their destiny. Pre-World War II fascism had its roots in economies shattered by World War I. Nationalism facilitated national economic reconstruction. Masses of voters were drawn to nationalism and racism, because they seemed to provide explanations for the origins of economic collapse as well as a system for economic recovery. They explained the collapse in terms of international forces and justified nationalism as a means for shielding the nation from those forces. Nationalist aggression was similarly justified in terms of increasing the scope of protection from international threats. Blocher's and Haider's movements differ in origin and intent. They are not a response to massive economic dysfunction. Any economic focus is a fear of future economic collapse, rooted in the fact that Switzerland and Austria are losing control of their national destiny to forces that are either indifferent to their fate or seeking to prosper from economic catastrophe. Traditional fascism is a response to very real, immediate and catastrophic economic problems. Today's right-wing movement is trying to avoid a perceived future calamity. The fact is, however, that Blocher and Haider are not about economic issues. Their strength is drawn from the persistent strength of nationalism. They speak for the unique characteristics of their nations and against foreign immigrants who are diluting those characteristics and multi-national institutions that are usurping the authority of the nation-state. To a great extent this is a reaction against those who have directly benefited from the transfer of power from the nation to Brussels and to other multi- national organizations. In its purest form, it is a revolt against the multi-national financial institutions, from the International Monetary Fund to Citigroup, that benefit greatly from a world without borders, and whose success undermines national government. There are those for whom economic values are the only rational ones, and the intrusion of any other value, like national culture, smacks of an archaic primitivism. These people tend to dismiss these movements as aberrant forms. But in Austria and Switzerland these movements are no longer marginal. They represent a growing political form. It is no longer possible to dismiss them. Nor is it possible to explain them in primarily economic terms. They must be understood on their own terms. While this movement has been most successful in Alpine Europe, representatives of it are present throughout the advanced industrial world. In the United States, for example, Pat Buchanan's campaign represents an American edition of this phenomenon. Buchanan's campaign opposes immigrants and multi-national institutions like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. He prophesizes economic disaster unless shifts in immigration and trade policy are put in place and unless power is transferred away from multi-national organizations. But it is not economic prosperity that is his main concern. Rather, he believes American culture cannot survive unless it defends itself from foreign intrusion and involvement. It is not clear how powerful this international movement will become. We can draw no conclusions from Switzerland and Austria. We do not know if this is the high point of the movement or whether it will grow stronger. We do not know if the movement will intensify elsewhere. There is an enormous difference between 10 percent and 25 percent supporting a party. It is difficult to imagine Buchanan getting 25 percent in the United States or Le Pen reviving in France. But then, these election results would have been difficult to imagine in the past. This much is clear. A movement is coalescing in the advanced industrial world that is a backlash against the globalism of the 1990s. It is a movement that does not adhere to the usual Left- Right logic. Industrial unionists, leftist intellectuals and small farmers are as likely to be attracted to the movement as those traditionally attracted to right-wing movements. The economic issue is free trade versus protectionism, but that is not at the movement's heart. At its heart is a desire to preserve the nation's culture from foreign, internationalist tendencies. This cultural focus makes it difficult for traditional analysts, used to thinking in terms of economic interest, to take this movement seriously. It is easy to dismiss movements with non- economic agendas. In our view, however, this would be a mistake. The fact that these movements do not make traditional economic sense is what reveals the most about them and what makes them potentially so interesting. For the bureaucrats in Brussels, economic growth is the only serious things for sane adults to discuss. For others, quality of life is more important and that is not just about ecology. It is also about being able to maintain a nation's culture. Frequently, that is not a very pretty sight, since maintaining a culture often means excluding or suppressing those who are different. Nevertheless, pretty or not, Austria and Switzerland seem to us to be an important signal of shifting political forces in the advanced industrial world. (c) 1999, Stratfor, Inc. __________________________________________________ SUBSCRIBE to FREE, DAILY GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATES (GIU) http://www.stratfor.com/services/giu/subscribe.asp or send your name, organization, position, mailing address, phone number, and e-mail address to [EMAIL PROTECTED] UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THE GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATES (GIU) http://www.stratfor.com/services/giu/subscribe.asp ___________________________________________________ STRATFOR.COM 504 Lavaca, Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: 512-583-5000 Fax: 512-583-5025 Internet: http://www.stratfor.com/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________
