The two largest parties followed: the centrist People’s Party (ÖVP) with 26.2% and the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) with 21.1%. The results mark a seismic shift in voter preferences. The ÖVP suffered the biggest loss for a governing party in history, dropping 11.2 points. The SPÖ saw their worst-ever vote since World War II.

The liberal NEOS, the only party without prior government experience, achieved its best result with 9.1%, gaining 1.0 point over its last showing. Meanwhile, the Green Party, which had served as the junior coalition partner over the past four years, secured just 8.2% of the vote, a loss of 5.7 points. The results are widely seen as a protest against the ruling coalition between the People’s Party and the Greens. Their shared 51% in the 2019 elections plummeted to only 36.6%.

The Ă–VP-Green tenure faced undeniable challenges. Issues including the COVID-19 pandemic, high and the Russian war in Ukraine plagued the partnership. The FPĂ– capitalized on these crises by positioning itself as a vocal critic and, at times, leaning on conspiracy theories. In contrast, other parties aimed to cooperate with the government and avoided polarizing the public further. The FPĂ– used its own platforms, such as YouTube and social media, to spread messages that would not appear in mainstream media. Voters viewing themselves as disaffected resonated with these messages.

When no one wants to govern with the populists

The FPÖ won the election, but just with a plurality of seats. Only the ÖVP sees a possible coalition with the FPÖ. However, they attached a significant condition. Karl Nehammer, the ÖVP chairman and current Austrian Chancellor, demanded that Herbert Kickl, the FPÖ leader, not be part of a coalition. This demand is unacceptable to the FPÖ. Kickl’s leadership was central to their record-breaking electoral success.

Winning the battle but not the war is a familiar scenario in elections across the region. Just a year earlier, Poland’s right-wing populist Law and Justice (PiS) party won an election by a narrow margin after governing for eight consecutive years. Although it was clear they would be unable to form a government, President Andrzej Duda still entrusted them with the task. Two valuable months were ultimately lost in negotiations destined to fail. In contrast, Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen took a different approach. He first met with all parties that passed the electoral threshold to discuss potential coalition intentions. Following these discussions, he confirmed what had already been stated publicly: No party was willing to form a coalition with the FPÖ.

As a result, Van der Bellen encouraged the three largest parties to explore coalition options among themselves. After both the Ă–VP and SPĂ– confirmed they had no interest in allying with the FPĂ– but would consider working together, Van der Bellen formally tasked Nehammer with forming a new government. Unlike in Germany, where parties commonly work together to isolate the far-right Alternative for Germany, a cordon sanitaire has not been the norm in Austria. The FPĂ– has previously served as a junior coalition partner on three occasions.

Austria’s future government

Currently, the ÖVP and SPÖ are negotiating with each other and seeking a third coalition partner. They hold exactly the 92 seats that are necessary for a majority. In reality, this is a tight bind. Potential illnesses or absences among MPs limit political maneuvering and efficiency. Therefore, a third partner is necessary. This too brings its own issues. Challenges arise between governing with either the liberal NEOS or the Greens. To reach a broad consensus, each party may have to compromise on key issues. The Social Democrats advocate for new taxes on businesses and inheritance, which the liberal NEOS oppose. A continued coalition with the Greens may be less advantageous politically for the People’s Party (ÖVP), as it has not been popular with voters.

The election result is a clear signal that change is needed in Austrian politics. Due to these policy differences, negotiations may take time, and a government might not even be formed before Christmas. Although the chances of a new election are low, they cannot be entirely ruled out. Electoral results in the federal state of Vorarlberg and upcoming elections in Styria put extra pressure on party leaders to come up with a solution. Vorarlberg has already shown the continuation of the good results for the FPÖ, although the ÖVP was able to keep their first place. In Styria, the situation could be reversed in the upcoming vote, which might undermine Nehammer’s refusal to work with Kickl. At the least, a strong FPÖ showing in Styria could spark a debate about his leadership within the ÖVP. SPÖ leader Andreas Babler is internally contested, leaving the third largest party with little breathing room. The FPÖ is already labeling the negotiations as being run by a “coalition of losers,” noting their decreased popularity from past elections.

One of the primary challenges facing the new government will be Austria’s struggling economy, which is projected to be in recession for the second consecutive year. is also surpassing acceptable levels under the Maastricht criteria set by the EU. In these already unfavorable circumstances, there will be the task of proving that the new coalition can work credibly together for the future of the country. There have not been any experiences with three parties in Austria, unlike neighboring . The German government proves the difficulty of balancing multiple parties’ interests. The recent collapse of the coalition does certainly not advocate for such a model. In any case, failure only benefits the FPĂ–. Despite his loud protesting, Kickl most likely prefers the role of opposition leader to continue feeding his victim narrative and build on his election result. 

Austria’s international position

No matter what the next coalition in Austria looks like, we can already draw some conclusions: The far-right in the EU continues its success throughout the latest elections. The Patriots for Europe faction in the European Parliament has now received the most votes in national elections in France, the Netherlands, Hungary and Austria. The Czech Republic will likely follow next year.

Even if they are not part of the government in all of these nations, the far right is shaping the political discourse. This can already be felt on the European level. One issue is migration. Border controls have been reintroduced in Germany, where state elections have seen the of the far-right, even if they are not (yet) polling at the first place nationally. Another possibility is the emergence of a nationalist, anti-migration, anti-transatlantic party on the left side of the spectrum taking part of some of these state governments. Despite only being founded earlier this year, a party with similar policies joined the government in Slovakia.

What unites both left and right-wing extremists is their pro-Russian narratives. This is bad news for Ukraine, as they are losing support in Central Europe, a region that has mostly experienced Soviet occupation. Seemingly, everyone has forgotten their historical experiences. Pertinently, Austria lies only about 430 kilometers (267 miles) from Ukraine. With US President Donald Trump now returning to the White House, this might even result in coupled with shattering the security architecture in Europe. The external and internal threat coming from the Kremlin has the possibility to further erode democracy within Europe and the European Union, bringing it to the brink of collapse

Austria might just have been another piece in the puzzle if they cannot counter appropriately as mentioned above. A phrase from Karl Kraus comes to mind, who called Austria in the interwar period the “experimental station of the end of the world.” However, this has already been used to the inauguration ofa a decade ago But then there is (most likely wrongly ascribed) quote from Kraus: “if the end of the world comes, I will go to Vienna, because everything happens there ten years later.”

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Austria’s Arduous Path to a New Government: Without the Far-Right appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

The post Financial Recovery: The Common Assessment Framework appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

The post Introducing the European Silk Road appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

The post How Universities Struggle for Autonomy appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

In 2014, Austria had the  unemployment rate in the European Union. That trend declined in the years that followed, but the economy remained largely competitive. Austria is also one of the top 10 countries with the number of unemployed young people among member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Debate Over COVID-19 Is Exactly What Austria Needs

READ MORE

Austrians will head to the polls later this year for elections. The incumbent president, Alexander Van der Bellen, remains undecided over running again, but he is eligible for a second term in office. In the 2016 election, he defeated Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party of Austria, thwarting his rival’s attempt to become the first far-right head of state in the EU.

Recently  as the world’s fifth-most peaceful country in the 2021 Global Peace Index, Austria has seen substantial economic fallout due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The government’s decision to introduce mandatory vaccination and hefty penalties for those who do not comply has stirred controversy.

Heinz Fischer, the president of Austria between 2004 and 2016, is a seasoned lawyer who had a long career in politics. He took his first step toward becoming a national leader in early 1963, when he served as a legal assistant to the vice president of the Austrian parliament. He later became a member of parliament himself and then served as the minister of science, before leading the national council, the lower house of parliament, from 1990 to 2002. He is currently the co-chairman of the Ban Ki-moon Centre for Global Citizens in Vienna.

I spoke to Dr. Fischer about the COVID-19 pandemic, the refugee crisis in Europe, the Iran nuclear talks in the Austrian capital and more.

The transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kourosh Ziabari: Mr. President, according to Statistics Austria and the Austrian Institute for Economic Research approximations, the total fiscal costs of the COVID-19 pandemic for Austria amount to roughly €70 billion [$79 billion] in the 2020-22 period. As of May 2021, the government had earmarked €37 billion for relief measures. Do you think this is a liability for the Austrian economy that may result in a short- or mid-term recession, or is it a deficit that can be made up for soon? Has the government been able to handle the economic burden of the pandemic efficiently?

Heinz Fischer: When COVID-19 reached Austria and the first lockdown became mandatory, I was surprised to hear the finance minister from the conservative party announcing that he would compensate the economic burden with “whatever it costs.” This was unusual language for a conservative minister of finance.

All in all, the government’s relief measures were crucial for reducing Austria’s economic damage of the pandemic. The Institute for Economic Research as well as our National Bank claim that Austria will be able to go back to the path of economic growth; this will reduce unemployment and keep recession lower than a traditional conservative finance policy of strict zero deficit would have done. But the performance of the government fighting against COVID-19 was less successful.

Ziabari: It was reported that the government is planning to introduce mandatory inoculation starting in early 2022 and that those holding out will face fines of up to $4,000. Of course, vaccination is the most effective way of combating the effects of the coronavirus. But does a vaccine mandate and handing out substantial penalties not go against democratic practice in a country known for its democratic credentials? You are no longer in office, but as an observer, do you support the decision?

Fischer: This is one of the hottest or even the hottest topic of current political debates in Austria. To answer your question promptly and directly: Yes, I believe it is necessary and legitimate to introduce mandatory inoculation — with justified exemptions — for a limited period of time in order to protect our population and our country in the best possible way. Other European countries start thinking in a similar way.

It is not a one-issue question. You have, on the one hand, the obligation of the government to protect basic rights and individual freedom and, on the other hand, the obligation of the government to protect the health and life of its population. And it is obvious that there are different, even antagonistic basic rights, namely individual freedom on the one side and health insurance and fighting a pandemic on the other. It is not an either/or but an as-well-as situation. The government must take care of two responsibilities simultaneously, meaning that the democratically-elected parliament has to seek and find the balance between two values and two responsibilities.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51łÔąĎ. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

If I remember correctly, a similar situation existed already two generations ago, when the danger of a smallpox pandemic justified an obligatory smallpox vaccination until the World Health Organization proclaimed the global eradication of the disease in 1980.

Ziabari: Moving on from the pandemic, Austria was one of the countries hugely affected by the 2015-16 refugee crisis in Europe. When the government of former Chancellor Sebastian Kurz came to power, it took a hard line on migration and made major electoral gains as a result. Now, with the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a new wave of westward migration appears to be in the making. Does Austria have a moral and human responsibility to protect asylum-seekers fleeing war and persecution, or should the responsibility be outsourced to other nations for certain reasons?

Fischer: My clear answer is, yes, Austria has a moral and human responsibility to protect asylum-seekers on the basis of international law and the international sharing of responsibilities.

Of course, we must discuss the numbers, the conditions, the possibilities, etc. of the respective country. But immediately saying no, we will not take women from Afghanistan, or we will not participate in burden-sharing of the European Union with the excuse that earlier governments many years ago already accepted a substantial share of refugees, is not acceptable. One cannot outsource humanity and moral duties.

Ziabari: How is Austria coping with the effects of climate change and its human rights implications? While the average global surface temperature rise from 1880 to 2012 has been 0.85° Celsius, it has been 2° Celsius for Austria. Austria’s target for 2030 is to cut greenhouse gas emissions not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System by 36%, but the International Energy Agency has forecast it may only achieve a 27% benchmark. Will Austria need external help to overcome the challenge? Are you positive it can fulfill the EU expectations?

Fischer: I do not think that Austria needs external help to fulfill its climate commitments. I do, however, think it is urgently necessary for the Austrian government to find a way forward in combating the climate crisis, a way that does not only cut greenhouse gas emissions, but which will also help to achieve societal consensus on the measures that are to be taken. This means the government must also be supporting social coherence.

Combating climate change is a multi-stakeholder effort and includes a just transition to clean energy, rapid phase-out of coal and end to international fossil fuel finance. In Austria in 2018, already 77% of electricity came from renewable energy sources and the number is constantly rising. While building a sustainable and climate-friendly future, we must, however, not forget to create green jobs, uphold human rights around the world and leave no one behind. I am positive that Austria will fulfill its EU expectations because it has to. There is only one planet, and we have to protect it with all means.

Ziabari: Let’s also touch upon some foreign policy issues. The former US president, Donald Trump, was rebuked by European politicians for alienating allies and spoiling partnerships with friendly, democratic nations and embracing repressive leaders instead. But Austria-US relations remained largely steady, and despite Trump’s protectionist trade policies, the United States imported a whopping $11.7 billion in goods and services from Austria. Do the elements that undergirded robust Austria-US connections still exist with a transition of power in the White House and a change of government in Austria?

Fischer: Yes, the relations between Austria and the United States have a long history and stable basis. Austria has not forgotten the prominent role of the US in the fight against Hitler. It has not forgotten the Marshall Plan — 75 years ago — and other ways of American support after World War II. The United States was a lighthouse of democracy in the 20^th century, including the time of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Horthy, etc. in Europe.

Of course, the Vietnam War, the political and economic pressure on countries in Latin America, the false arguments as the basis for a military invasion in Iraq and the heritage of racism have cast shadows on US policy. But having said all this, it is also true that the US has strengths in many fields of foreign policy and good relations between the US and Europe are a stabilizing factor in the world.

I would like to add that Donald Trump was and still is a great challenge for democracy in the US and a danger for the positive image of the United States in Europe and elsewhere.

Ziabari: Are you concerned about the tensions simmering between Russia and the West over Ukraine? Should it be assumed that Russia’s threats of deploying intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe are serious, or are the Russians bluffing to test the West’s resolve, particularly now that one of Europe’s influential leaders, Angela Merkel, has departed? Are Russia’s complaints about NATO’s exploitation of Ukraine to expand eastwards and the ongoing discrimination against Ukraine’s Russian-speaking populace valid?

Fischer: Yes, I am concerned about the growing conflict between Russia and the West, and this conflict has a long history. World War II was not started by Russia, the Soviet Union, but brutally against them.

After World War II, there was a bipolar world developing between the East and the West, between Moscow and Washington, between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. After the fall of the Iron Curtain and the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new situation emerged. Gorbachev was honestly interested in a more peaceful world. He was accepting over the reunification of Germany and accepted the former Warsaw Pact member East Germany to become a member of NATO.

But the deal was that Russia’s security should not be reduced, and other parts of the former Soviet Union should not become part of NATO. And, in this respect, Ukraine is an extremely sensitive issue. It is already a while ago, but let’s remember how sensitive the United States reacted to the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis — the stationing of Russian weapons near the US. NATO weapons at the border of Russia are not supportive of peace and stability.

Ziabari: German Chancellor Angela Merkel stepped down after 16 years in power. Aside from being referred to as the de facto leader of the EU, she was praised for her leadership during the eurozone debt crisis and her role in mustering global solidarity to fight COVID. What do you think about the legacy she has left behind? In terms of relations with Austria, do you think her differences with the government of Sebastian Kurz on immigration, Operation Sophia and the EU budget blighted the perception that Austrians had of her?

Fischer: Angela Merkel was a great leader, crucial for Germany, crucial for Europe, crucial for human rights, crucial for peace. I admired and liked her. When former Austrian Chancellor Kurz and former German Chancellor Merkel shared different views, Merkel was, in my opinion, mostly on the right and Kurz on the wrong side. She was “Mrs. Stability and Reliability” in a positive sense.

And her legacy? She belongs with Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt to the four great German leaders after World War II. Under her leadership, Germany was the most stable nation in the European Union and her relationship with Austria was a mirror to her character, namely balanced, friendly and correct.

Ziabari: In the past couple of decades, Europe has been the scene of multiple terror attacks with hundreds of casualties, including the November 2020 shooting in Vienna, which European officials and media unanimously blamed on Islamist terrorism and political Islam. What are the stumbling blocks to the normalization of relations between secular Europe and its Muslim community? Is this civilizational, generational clash destined to last perennially, or are you optimistic that the two discourses can come to a co-existence?

Fischer: The melting of different nationalities, cultures and religions is always a difficult task. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy finally collapsed because of unsolved conflicts between European nationalities.

Conflicts become even more difficult when they include different religions and ethnicities. We can say that the conflict between our German-speaking, Czech-speaking, Hungarian- or Polish-speaking grandparents is more or less overcome, but the conflict between Christians and Muslims will last longer. We can study this in the United States. But it is my personal hope that multi-religious integration is possible in the long run in a fair and democratic society.

Ziabari: Talks to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, are underway in the Austrian capital. Are you hopeful that the moribund agreement can be brought back to life? Do you see the determination to save the accord in the Iranian side and the other parties, for the benefit of international peace and security?

Fischer: I was very happy when the 2015 JCPOA was signed between Iran, the United States, China and several European countries. And I believe it was one of the very wrong and unwise decisions of Donald Trump to withdraw from that agreement. To revitalize this agreement is, as we can observe these days, very difficult.

As you asked me about my opinion, I am inclined to a more pessimistic outlook, because the present Iranian leaders are more hardliners than the last government and President Biden is under heavy pressure and has not much room for compromises. On the other hand, I recently met a member of the Iranian negotiation team in Vienna and, to my surprise, he was rather optimistic.

One of my wishes for 2022 is a reasonable and fair solution for the JCPOA negotiations and a détente between Iran and the Western world. But the chances for a positive outcome seem to be limited at the moment.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Former Austrian President Heinz Fischer Talks to 51łÔąĎ appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

Do Americans Still Trust Their Public Health Agencies? 

READ MORE

That’s why when reading Sebastian Schäffer’s response to my earlier article on 51łÔąĎ, I welcomed his perspective on the matter. However, I couldn’t help but notice certain misassumptions he has made regarding my stance on the pandemic and the dilemma Austria currently finds itself in. Furthermore, I would have hoped that some of the studies I previously included, pertaining to rising infection rates among those vaccinated and the efficacy of vaccines in combating new strains, would have been addressed in his piece. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of his comments and focus on the crux of the issue: the efficacy and ethical component of vaccine mandates. 

Divisional Sentiments

This ongoing pandemic has caused people from all over the world to experience a host of emotions, including apprehension, doubt and anger. Schäffer is not alone in feeling frustrated that things have “gone this far” regarding the status quo in Austria. Those who have read my article know that frustration is a key sentiment felt not only by myself, but by countless people around the globe. We need only to look at riots in the or the to confirm this.

I believe Schäffer is mistaken in assuming that mandatory vaccinations would “help to alleviate” the division in Austrian society. But don’t take my word for it. Thomas Czypionka, head of health economics and policy at the Vienna-based Institute for Advanced Studies, that a vaccine mandate “deepens the chasm in our society” and “may well serve as a strong push to more radicalization — especially with our history.”

Similar sentiments are echoed by Eva Maria Adamer-Konig, head of public health at FH Joanneum University of Applied Sciences in Graz, who is of the conviction that most unvaccinated people “will probably even go into more resistance.” In an interview with Time magazine, she a pertinent study by the European Journal of Public Health in 2016 that found mandates for selected vaccinations can make people more likely to refuse other vaccinations they had previously been comfortable with. I would invite our esteemed readers to have look at the study and assess its implications for today.

Nonetheless, the question remains: How can those who have fundamentally opposing views still remain inclusive, fair and non-partisan when attempting to dissect the hard facts and plethora of information available on this subject?

Shunning Those You Politically Oppose

A recurrent theme not only in Schäffer’s response, but from many media outlets covering the recent demonstrations in Vienna was the presence of right-wing and extremist sympathizers. Schäffer affirms that hidden “reasons” were behind the massive protests in the Austrian capital on November 20 and that one should remain cautious over those who “organize and attend such protests.” To my dismay, not a single source or reference was included to provide further insight into these hidden “reasons.” It is true that among the protesters in Vienna were those from the far right. Yet, as already confirmed, the protest was not merely limited to individuals with such political leanings.

Let it be known that the ideology and policies embraced by the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPO) could not be more antithetical to my own political beliefs. Also, those demonstrators who wore yellow Stars of David with “unvaccinated” during the protests are not only tone-deaf, but their actions were abhorrently reprehensible. (I myself did not see any badges at the protest, but I acknowledge a few people were reported to have worn them.) But does this give us the right to shun and disenfranchise the concerns of the protesters as a collective based on the actions of certain individuals? That would be akin to trivializing and marginalizing the Black Lives Matter movement based on the violent actions of a few rioters. That sounds counterintuitive, doesn’t it? 

Yet even if someone is politically opposed to those who have a different view on COVID-19, does their voice bear less significance as a result, and should they be treated disparagingly? As Voltaire reportedly once said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Citizens of a democratic nation have an equal say in matters pertaining to their country. That means I can protest against a common issue even with my most staunch political adversary. For one to claim that “opposition to COVID measures plays into the hands of populists … for their own agenda” is, again, an assumption without any factual clarification.

Furthermore, even if criticizing the state broadcaster ORF has been a tactic employed by the FPO, if I criticize them as well, does that automatically nullify my critique from being valid? I could not wrap my head around this faulty reductionist logic. Citing an article from The Atlantic pertaining to anti-vaxxers in Germany in which Austria is not even mentioned and correlating this by vaguely implying these two countries are similar (perhaps based on a shared history) is frankly confusing and misleading to the reader. Germany and Austria are two separate nations, with different cabinets and policies regarding COVID-19. 

Being Receptive to Data Contrary to Your Beliefs

When mentioning the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin in my earlier article, I was simply raising awareness of the manner in which certain news outlets such as CNN spun a story to serve a specific agenda. Yet since this topic has been raised in Schäffer’s response, I feel compelled to expand on this subject.

To tie FPO leader Herbert Kickl’s stance on the drug with its efficacy to treat COVID-19 is an attempt to politicize the narrative around ivermectin. For if I oppose Kickl, and if Kickl supports using the drug as a plan B, does this automatically mean I oppose ivermectin?

What is conveniently disregarded by Schäffer is a lengthy case in Uttar Pradesh, the most populated state in India. The state, which is home to around 241 million people, has fewer than 20 infections and zero deaths a day in recent months, ranking it last in cases per capita amongst India’s 28 states and eight union territories. Ivermectin has been widely distributed across the population for use during early infection with COVID-19. Further studies from in 2020, based on data pulled from a pool of 1,200 hospitals, showed that patients who received ivermectin had a “65% reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation and an 83% reduction in overall death rate.” These studies probably bear greater weight in shedding light on the efficacy of the drug than a lone hospitalization case in Austria. That, in my opinion, is false balancing.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51łÔąĎ. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

This leads to my next question: Why are certain studies promoted and others banished from seeing the light of day? Could the fact that ivermectin, a generic drug that holds no patents, be a threat to the pharmaceutical establishment that is producing COVID-19 vaccines en masse? Also, what leverage do these pharmaceutical companies exert on political parties via lobbying and on global media through donations? 

I find these to be suitable questions, with significant relevance to the discourse and in need of further exploration. Let us not forget that the majority of people vaccinated are from the Western world, with many developing countries unable to get their hands on jabs. If that isn’t indicative of a greater two-tier system or “medical apartheid,” then I don’t know what is.

Other Metrics to Measure the Toll COVID-19 Has Taken on Us

The over-burdening of our health-care system is often mentioned and many believe a heightened vaccination rate would alleviate some of that pressure. I would be doing the readers of 51łÔąĎ and myself a disservice if I chose not to address this point. Indeed, vaccines have been shown to reduce hospitalization rates and the severity of infection from COVID-19. It is also true that many of our health-care professionals are being pushed to their limits.

Schäffer ends his article by saying that the well-being of society is more important than one’s personal health. I would therefore like to discuss other metrics in assessing COVID-19‘s toll on society, irrespective of fatalities and hospitalizations. We are witnessing a staggering number of , drug , cases of , and alarming accounts of as a result of the pandemic and the ongoing lockdowns. In Austria, this year has been a for the number of husbands murdering their wives. I ask our readers to assess this phenomenon and question whether this too is deserving of our attention and alarm.

With the emergence of the new highly contagious Omicron strain, which is purported to have 30 mutations in the virus’ spike protein, will current vaccines be effective in quelling this variant? As mentioned in my previous article, COVID-19 vaccines have shown significantly less efficacy with the Delta variant — a far less contagious strain than Omicron — than natural immunity from infection, as per a in Israel.

Regarding the history of mandatory vaccinations of smallpox that many pro-vaxxers are referencing today, this comparison lacks credibility. Smallpox vaccines are effective in preventing infection, whereas those vaccinated with COVID-19 jab are just as likely to the virus as those without, as stated in my previous article. Additionally, the smallpox vaccine was first in 1796, and its implementation in England and Wales was between 1840 and 1890, which allowed over half a century to elapse for sufficient data to be gathered before the vaccine was mandatorily inoculated.

COVID-19 vaccines are barely a year old, with insufficient data regarding their long-term side effects. They are also being deployed through emergency use, which means neither governments nor pharmaceutical companies bear in their adverse effects. So, what justification will a person have when someone who is opposed to getting vaccinated is coerced by legal means to get the jab and then develops life-altering conditions such as , which has led some countries to the use of mRNA vaccines in teenagers? What other side-effects could potentially arise if vaccinating our children also becomes subsequently mandatory? Considering the data on vaccines and their efficacy has changed considerably this past year, would it not be safe to assume that it will continue to change? These are some of the material questions many people are seeking answers to.

To ensure this is not a back-and-forth exchange, this will be my final statement. I urge all of us to remove the political prism through which we view this topic. We should be receptive and fair to studies that may go against our convictions and remain inclusive in appreciating concerns from those with whom we may not agree. Only then will we be better off as individuals and society as a whole. 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Debate Over COVID-19 Is Exactly What Austria Needs appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

In Switzerland, the COVID-19 Certificate Divides Opinions

READ MORE

Yet, unlike the author’s view, I was frustrated that it has gone this far and that we now need to use tough measures — which include mandatory vaccinations by February 2022 — to avoid a collapse of the health care system. The more I thought about the points raised in the article, the more I felt the urge to respond. I appreciate the policy of 51łÔąĎ to publish those with differing opinions and I want to contribute to the discussion.

Poor Communication

First, you can and should criticize the Austrian government for how it has handled the COVID-19 crisis. In particular, its communication was flawed by prematurely lifting COVID-19 restrictions in July and there would be a “return to normal” by the summer. Criticism of the government is clearly allowed in Austria, otherwise protests against lockdowns and vaccines wouldn’t be taking place.

Yet what baffles me is that for some, there seems to be a complete ignorance over the reasons that many people participate in such demonstrations. This becomes dangerous if one is oblivious to messages used by populist and far-right groups — many of which organize and attend such protests — without questioning them.

For instance, the chant “Wir sind das Volk” (We are the people) can often be heard during protests today against lockdowns and vaccines. It was also used during demonstrations that led to German reunification in 1990 and was directed at the authoritarian German Democratic Republic (GDR), otherwise known as East Germany. The measures introduced to prevent the spread of COVID-19 are nowhere comparable to the GDR. But when populist politicians like the leader of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPO), Herbert Kickl, in press releases that from “today, Austria is a dictatorship,” it distracts people from the reasons for COVID restrictions and mocks victims of real dictatorships.

I am lucky to have never lived in an authoritarian state, but I do work with people who do and/or have. Therefore, I do not have apt words to respond to claims of “medical apartheid” to describe what is happening today with restrictions being dependent on one’s vaccination status. For example, unvaccinated people were first banned from visiting hospitality venues, hairdressers and cinemas, followed by a that was specifically for those who had not received a vaccine. It is also true that students and lecturers in Austria must be fully vaccinated in order to attend lectures, but this mainly applies to medical universities where first semesters involve working in ; other universities were permitted to set their own rules. Requiring a negative PCR test would probably work best to help curb the spread of COVID-19 as breakthrough infections can occur among those vaccinated.

Here, the official communication should have been better. The mistake by the government was that being fully vaccinated implied that wearing a face covering and being regularly tested were no longer necessary. Scientific findings during a pandemic are fluid and new research might make adapting to the situation necessary. This should have been better relayed to the Austrian public not by researchers, but by politicians and journalists.

This situation contributed to the necessity of announcing another lockdown, which, in addition to vaccine mandates, led to the demonstrations in Austria last weekend. As is always the case, estimates vary to a great extent between official figures from the police (40,000 protesters in the capital Vienna) and the organizers (one of them being the far-right FPO, which said 100,000 attended).

Regardless of which source is more credible, let’s put this into perspective. On the same day, more than people were vaccinated in Austria with either their first, second or third doses. In Vienna alone, over received a jab, which was the third consecutive day with the highest number of vaccinations in the capital. In other words, nearly the same amount of people who showed their discontent with the vaccination mandate and lockdown actually received their jab. And the overwhelming majority clearly believe in the efficacy of the vaccines — more than two-thirds of Austrians are fully vaccinated.

The Far Right

Second, it is necessary to have a closer look at who has been organizing these protests, which have occurred throughout the year. (German-speaking readers can watch documentary.) The Atlantic this up in an article on protests in Germany, which has similarities to Austria. In both countries, participants have included conspiracy theorists and members of both the far left and far right. For the record, not everyone who has attended such demonstrations falls into one of these categories. Khalifa points this out by saying he saw “people from all walks of life” at the protest in Vienna on November 20. However, one should be aware with whom they are assembling and the messaging of the main organizers.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51łÔąĎ. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

At protests in Germany and in , an underlying issue is anti-Semitism. The crude comparison with the Holocaust by some protesters wearing a yellow Star of David with “” written instead of “Jew” leaves me again at a loss for words. There is a certain irony when people are protesting with signs that read “My Body, My Choice” next to groups that would deny a person this choice when it comes to abortion.

Shifts in the discourse and cries about a so-called dictatorship desensitize others when it comes to actual alarming developments. The aim is to create a sense of duty to participate in order to prevent greater harm. But why then has it been framed as “patriotic,” as Khalifa puts it, instead of a civic duty to act?

Ultimately, opposition to COVID measures plays into the hands of populists, who benefit and are driving this forward for their own political agenda. Criticizing the national public service broadcaster, ORF, is another one of these methods and has been used by the FPO for a long time.

Kickl has also praised the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, amongst others, as a “” for the pandemic. One of his fellow party members even waved a of the drug in parliament. While there seems to be an indication for possibly using the drug to treat some cases of COVID-19, the European Medicines Agency has warned that the dosage to be effective is . Supplies of ivermectin are now low due to high demand in Austria, directly impacting the treatment of conditions the drug is traditionally used for. It has also led to at least one person ending up in the .

Vaccine Mandate

Third, mandatory vaccinations would actually help to alleviate the situation in Austria, not only with the pandemic, but also with regard to divisions in society. If everybody is vaccinated, everybody has the same rights and obligations. In an with the BBC, Austrian Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg focused on the latter, stating that you “don’t only have rights, you have obligations.”

It would also help to get out of the loop of lockdowns, which are extremely expensive for any economy. Estimates for the latest lockdown are as high as ($4.48 billion). This will ultimately lead to tax hikes in the next national budget and have an impact on future investments. Less pressure on hospitals would also lead to fewer burned-out staff members, who are quitting in desperation. But the most important point: Fewer people will die or suffer from long-term implications, which, due to the relatively short experience we have with COVID-19, still might be unknown.  

It is worth pointing out that vaccines were in post-war Austria and elsewhere, namely in order to eradicate smallpox. But it remains to be seen how the legal basis for this will look like today with legal challenges likely to take place. That is the beauty of living in a democratic country based on the rule of law.

In a democracy, that also includes the right to protest. But one should be cautious with whom they are protesting and find more suitable ways of voicing different opinions instead of assembling with a large group of people during a pandemic. Protesters are figuratively spitting into the face of health care professionals, something that has literally been done by some participants at in Austria. Virtual town hall debates, signing petitions or engaging with your political representatives would be alternative possibilities.

What should be more sacred than personal health is the well-being of society. History is the progress of the consciousness of freedom, and individual freedom ends when it endangers the freedom of others.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post The Debate Over COVID-19 Continues in Austria appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

We arrived at Rathausplatz just after noon on Saturday and were surprised to see a sizable turnout was already present. In particular, it was interesting to see people from all walks of life come together to voice their discontent with what many believe to be an authoritarian decision by our government.

In Switzerland, the COVID-19 Certificate Divides Opinions

READ MORE

There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting restrictions have caused heated debate in Austria and around the world. It has led to rifts within households, arguments amongst friends and clashes between political opponents. Nearly two years since the outbreak of the virus, many of us are left with questions unanswered over our inalienable rights, our livelihoods and the state of our future. What is more startling is how the narrative surrounding the coronavirus and its transmission has changed, leaving many skeptics wondering whether the Austrian government has our best interests at heart.

Whilst walking around before the march commenced, I noticed many women holding signs stating, “My Body, My Choice.” Before Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg’s press conference announcing the new restrictions and vaccine mandate, it seemed unfathomable that a democratic country like Austria could force individuals to either get vaccinated or suffer the consequences. Starting November 15, those unvaccinated were ordered to stay at home or incur a hefty fine. This was a lockdown specifically for people who chose not to receive a jab.

Despite Austria being a relatively small country, news of a national lockdown and vaccine mandate sent shivers throughout the globe. Stock markets around the world did not take the news lightly, with most tumbling considerably. My sister was surprised to hear this. “How can the policies of one small nation have such an impact on the international market?” she asked. I replied saying that many were that Germany and other countries in Europe would follow suit and that this would create a ripple effect. 

Vaccines

When the rollout of vaccines began at the beginning of 2021, many were optimistic that it was the beginning of the end for restrictions placed on our lives and that some degree of normalcy could return. Pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and Moderna touted their two-dose vaccines to be over 90% effective in preventing the transmissibility of the virus, and governments were quick to encourage people to get their first jab immediately.

However, as the coronavirus inevitably mutated into thousands of strains, as all viruses do, this efficacy rate was now in question. US President Joe Biden’s former senior adviser for COVID response, Andy Slavitt, in July that the dominant Delta variant is far more contagious than previous strains and will inevitably get it. Despite this, many governments around the world argued that a vaccine was paramount in slowing down the spread of the virus and that this was the soundest policy to embrace.

Yet data collected by seems to indicate otherwise. South Korea, which has vaccinated 80% of its population, has seen a considerable in COVID-19 cases. The situation is similar in the United Kingdom and Israel, which have comparably high percentages of their population vaccinated. A year-long recently revealed that those vaccinated are just as likely to transmit the virus as those who are unvaccinated.

This begs the question: Are vaccines the solution in controlling the spread of the coronavirus and stopping the global pandemic? Also, why are so many governments adamant and unrelenting in getting their populations vaccinated? 

Solidarity

As a large group of protesters could be heard coming our way on Vienna’s Ring Street, I could sense that the march was about to begin. Police were out in droves, with news outlets reporting that 1,300 officers were dispatched, many coming from rural parts of Austria. I saw a number of flags being waved, including Italian, Croatian, Slovenian, Polish and countless Austrian ones. A strong sense of solidarity was on display, and I couldn’t help but notice that many, regardless of their nationality, felt that this was their patriotic duty to turn up and speak out against what they felt was an infringement on their basic rights.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51łÔąĎ. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

The atmosphere was positively charged. Despite the big crowds, people were cordial in making way for others, and some would strike up friendly conversations with one another. The man who was tasked with giving a speech about why we were protesting started speaking about a two-tier system that the government had created and the division it has sown between people. Demonstrators were clapping and cheering in agreement, and I found myself nodding along to the point he had raised.

I recall hearing the term “medical apartheid” a few months ago, which I found apt in describing the current status quo. It is undeniable that those who have chosen not to get vaccinated have endured social consequences in various forms. Previously, in order to visit a restaurant, museum or club in Austria, one had to provide proof of vaccination, a recent recovery from COVID-19 or a negative PCR/antigen test. The latter has since become inadmissible. Institutions such as universities do not accept proof of recovery from the virus either, known as the â€ś1G” rule, for lectures. This applies to both students and staff.

These measures are interesting considering that researchers in Israel that antibodies resulting from infection last longer against the Delta variant than those produced by two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. So, the question is what will be the next step taken by our government? Will booster shots become mandatory at some point?

Media Reporting

As my sister and I looked back at the crowds, we saw a sea of people. We couldn’t tell where it started and where it ended. I asked, “How many people do you think turned out today?” She replied, “Around 8,000 to 10,000?” That seemed to be far fewer than what I thought — more like 25,000. After a few hours and worn-out soles, we decided to go home and make use of what was left of the weekend before the lockdown begins. I arrived at my apartment and noticed my sister had sent me a message. It was an article by that said over 40,000 people attended the demonstrations in the capital.

To my dismay, the state broadcaster , along with many national and news outlets, downplayed and dismissed this protest as one organized and “led by right-wing extremists and hooligans,” which was simply inaccurate and truly unfortunate to read. This raises questions as to what motives or agendas these media organizations have and the negative consequences of their reporting on people’s trust in the veracity of their content.

I couldn’t help but think about the Joe Rogan debacle over the anti-parasitic drug and how news broadcasters such as CNN deliberately twisted information. Rogan, a well-known podcaster who chose not to get vaccinated, contracted COVID-19 a few months ago and recovered. He took ivermectin, a drug prescribed by his doctor to treat early symptoms of COVID-19. Upon taking the drug, CNN and other outlets spun the story and said he took a “,” conveniently ignoring that have provided sufficient evidence into the effectiveness of ivermectin on COVID-19 patients.

For the record, I am not against anyone getting the jab; I got vaccinated this summer to avoid restrictions on my movement and activities. Yet, just as it is a person’s right to get vaccinated, if someone opts not to do so, that is their choice. If we allow the Austrian government to unequivocally determine what is best for us when the evidence is changing constantly, then I fear this will give the government a carte blanche to meddle in our private affairs without reservation. And we will have given them the mandate to do so.

That is a terrifying prospect and must be avoided at all costs. For what is more sacred and personal than our own rights, health and well-being?

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post Austria’s COVID-19 Measures Have Gone Too Far appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

The University and College Union is fighting job cuts and the closure of courses, departments and even entire campuses at 16 universities across the country, including the universities of Chester, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Portsmouth and Sheffield. Teaching has finished for the year in most places, so the strikes, boycotts and protests are relying primarily on the assumption that it is possible to shame university managers into upholding long-cherished norms about the intrinsic value of education. In several cases, the cuts are a response to the UK government’s to reduce funding to the Performing and Creative Arts, Media Studies and Archaeology by half. The wave of redundancies is seen as evidence that many university leaders value profit and political expediency more than research and education.

Why Designating the Azov Movement as an FTO Is Ineffective

READ MORE

Whether a strategy of petitions and public shaming will work remains to be seen, but the way that universities responded to political and economic pressure during the crisis of postwar reconstruction does not bode well for the unions. In 1920s Austria, university leaders proved willing to sacrifice academic standards and the jobs and physical safety of their staff in order to placate violent bullies on the radical right.

Austria in the 1920s

Austrian universities struggled to stay open during World War I, welcoming women and refugees as students and offering “war degrees” for soldiers who could take crash courses and simplified exams while on leave from the front. Once the war was over, students flooded back to campuses, many of them veterans who had been forced to postpone their studies during the war. Whereas before the war students had come from across the Habsburg Empire, now that the empire had collapsed, university admissions officers privileged students who were citizens of the new Austrian Republic.

A reforming, left-wing government in Vienna tried to reorganize the education system and bring institutions of higher education under the control of the Ministry of Education. Outside of Vienna, in particular, many university leaders resisted centralizing efforts in the hope that the republic would collapse and be absorbed into a greater German nation-state. As old power structures crumbled and new, ethnically-based democracies were established across the region, right-wing students attempted to take advantage of the upheaval to impose their agendas on universities.

Antisemitic riots and violence against Jewish students plagued universities in at least 11 European countries during the early 1920s, as students demanded that Jews be banned from attending universities and that Jewish or left-wing professors be expelled. Students targeted individual professors, including celebrated scientists such as Albert Einstein and Julius Tandler, disturbing their lectures and vandalizing laboratories. Despite condemning the violence, in the vast majority of cases, university leaders made concessions to the students by preventing Jews from sitting their exams and, in some cases, even introducing strict quotas on the number of Jews allowed to enroll.

Alfons Leon

The case of Professor Alfons Leon at the Technical University in Graz is particularly instructive. An acclaimed researcher in technical mechanics with a host of accolades to his name, Leon was dean of the School of Civil Engineering for three years. His state-of-the-art laboratory was the envy of his colleagues.

But, in 1922, he insisted that students who were war veterans sit rigorous exams when some of the other professors had been willing to let them pass without having studied the material. Leon was a known socialist and the disgruntled students began sending him threats and complaining about him to the university. The students were members of the same right-wing fraternities that were responsible for the antisemitic riots. That November, they challenged one of Leon’s teaching assistants to a duel. As the duel was clearly directed at Leon himself, he refused to allow his assistant to fight, which the students took as an insult to the honor system that fraternity life was based on.

Rather than support their professor, the university leadership launched an inquiry into Leon’s alleged misconduct and forced him to take a leave of absence. The investigation lasted 10 years, with Leon making skillful use of the university’s established rules and procedures to keep his job and insist that he had done nothing wrong.

In the process, it became apparent that several of his senior colleagues supported the students because they were alumni of the same fraternities that were persecuting Leon. Professor Fritz Postuvanschitz, in particular, led the attack on Leon because he had refused to fabricate evidence that would have helped Postuvanschitz’s son escape being convicted of fraud. Other senior figures in the university sided with the students because they sympathized with their right-wing politics and disliked Leon as a graduate of Viennese universities they saw as their rivals. Eventually, Leon was forced into early retirement, but only after the collapse of democracy in Austria and the rise of an Austrofascist government.

Lessons for Today

Leon’s story teaches several lessons that are still relevant today. First, it reminds us that universities are eminently political places, where personal ambitions, petty jealousies and party politics frequently matter more than credentials or upholding academic standards. Second, it reveals how easily university managers are manipulated by student violence, especially when those students are supported by influential voices in the community. Third, it shows that it is indeed possible to resist managerial bullying by appealing to labor laws and following established procedures, even though doing so might be exhausting, detrimental to one’s health and, ultimately, futile. But fourth, and most importantly, it shows that even when one occupies the high moral ground, it is often impossible to shame university administrators when they cherish political power and entrenched interests over what they claim to be the values of their institutions.

For those lecturers fighting for their jobs today, Leon offers hope that resistance is possible, but also a warning that exposing management’s cupidity and disrespect for academic values might not be enough.

*[51łÔąĎ is a media partner of the .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post How the Radical Right Bullied Professors in 1920s Austria appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

Of all places, it is Austria’s smallest municipality of Gramais in the Tyrolean Alps that has become symbolic for the political state the country is in. Only 51 people live in this village—39 of them eligible to vote. On May 22, . Half of them chose Alexander Van der Bellen, a former Green Party leader who ran as an independent candidate and eventually won the race. The other half of voters in the picturesque village of Gramais checked the box for Norbert Hofer of the right-wing populist Freedom Party (FPÖ)—as did 49.7% of Austrians.

The match was so close that a final result could only be reached a day later. A striking number of had to be counted, resulting in Van der Bellen overtaking his opponent, but only by a small sum of . The election turned into an international media frenzy in Vienna, with hundreds of journalists watching the race almost as anxiously as Austrians themselves.

The reason for this high level of global interest was not because of President-Elect Van der Bellen. The world’s eye was solely focused on Hofer and whether Austria would become yet another European nation led by a right-wing populist. It would have followed a drastic trend around the continent with the right turn of countries such as .

Past and Present

Austria has been here before. In 1986, Kurt Waldheim, a former secretary-general of the United Nations (UN), ran for president backed by the centrist People’s Party (ÖVP). In his application to the UN, he lied and failed to mention his involvement under the . Despite enormous international resistance, Waldheim was elected president by . He lasted one term until 1992 and remained widely isolated internationally; he was .

This time around, the pressure against Hofer from outside Austria came from high ranking politicians, including the presidents of the , Jean-Claude Juncker and Martin Schulz, among others.

This was different from one year ago. When speaking to the public, Austrian leaders headed by Chancellor Werner Faymann of the Social Democrats (SPĂ–) euphemistically presented themselves to be just fine. While the governing coalition of the SPĂ– and Ă–VP had taken heavy blows in regional elections in and later in , there was no sign that their seemingly sedated political strategy would change any time soon. And hardly anyone outside the national borders seemed to be paying much attention to the alpine republic.

Suddenly on August 28, 2015, however, all eyes were on Austria and a truck found on a highway in the eastern province of Burgenland: 71 refugees—eight women, four children and 59 men—had . Soon after, German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared, “We can do it!” in response to the humanitarian crisis that surfaced in the movement of refugees and migrants from Syria, Afghanistan and many other countries. Faymann followed suit, opening borders and letting thousands of refugees enter Austria, most of whom did not plan on staying but instead had the aim of reaching Germany.

The Viennese regional elections served as a final wake-up call in terms of the . From that moment, the “refugees welcome” attitude adopted by Faymann and his cabinet had changed. Instead, he . If nothing else, Faymann was brought to his knees by Hofer and his FPÖ and their aggressive anti-refugee campaigning. A large part of the population had bought into the populist strategy of fear and distrust in anything and anyone foreign. On top of that, constant disappointment and general disenchantment with politics were feeding the specter of the right-wing movement.

Alexander Van der Bellen

Today, Faymann is history. Booed by the left-wing of his own party at their traditional parade on May 1, he later. , the former national railway (ÖBB) chief and figurehead during the refugee crisis, has taken office. With him came a hint of hope in the midst of political turmoil in Austria that a final right turn may be fended off. Kern has only a little time to get his new cabinet back on track and to prove that he is the wunderkind that he is expected to be. For President-Elect Van der Bellen’s campaign, Kern’s appearance was the silver lining of destructive political turbulence that seemed to be helping his rival.

But who is this rawboned, chain smoking economist who has gathered half the country behind him? , known by his nickname Sascha, was born in 1944 in Vienna. His father, an aristocrat of German, Dutch and Estonian descent born in Russia, and his Estonian mother had both fled Stalinism. Van der Bellen is a retired professor of economics at the University of Vienna. As a member of the Green Party, he sat in parliament for many years and acted as their federal spokesperson until 2008. During the election battle, he insisted on being an independent candidate for the presidency—although the Green Party provided not only moral, but also monetary support for his campaign.

In the end, Alexander “Sascha” Van der Bellen received 50.3% percent of the vote—many of which came his way to prevent Hofer from becoming president. Van der Bellen gathered a large committee of supporters around him consisting of influential people in politics, science and the arts. Toward the end of the race, he even managed to form unexpected alliances with the Catholic women’s movement, despite leaving the Catholic Church and being without a religious denomination.

Split Austria

One thing is for certain: Van der Bellen and Hofer have managed to split the country. Their average voter types could hardly be more different. The trench between them separates women and men, urban and rural, higher and lower education levels. If one was to give into a bold thought experiment of only one gender being allowed to vote—let us say women for the sake of the argument—Van der Bellen . Young women, living in the went to the polls to pick Van der Bellen. Hofer’s votes came from men up to 59 years old without a high school diploma and who were in search of a “strong president.”

But Van der Bellen’s victory is nothing but a faint signal of reason to Europe and the world. He will be welcomed by the international community and ought to represent Austria in an adequate diplomatic manner. However, the role of the Austrian president is not what you may think. The presidency does not hold a great deal of power inside or outside the country.

Added to that, half of Austria voted against the president-elect in favor of the antipode: Hofer and the FPÖ. This is the party’s greatest success, and it is to be expected that they will benefit from this historic result at the general elections in 2018.

In April, before the first round of elections, the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF) aired a debate between all the candidates, in which Hofer said: “.” While he lost the election, his statement is as worrying as ever. Governments in Europe must overcome their nationalist approach to solve global challenges, which can only be tackled if member states of the European Union manage to unite and find common ground. Otherwise, Hofer’s statement may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

President-elect Van der Bellen has acknowledged that he is taking over a split nation. In his first speech after the final result, he said the trenches had been there before and that “.”  Because in the end, both halves of the population still matter. If he didn’t feel presidential yet, he certainly did by closing his speech with: “You are as important as I am and I am as important as you are. And together we add up to this beautiful Austria.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your  is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a .

The post Austrian President Takes Over a Split Nation appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

The Syrian refugee crisis has been in the headlines of major news outlets over the past week, with pressure mounting on European leaders to take a “moral” stance against their original wishes.

British Prime Minister David Cameron is no exception. With every passing hour, we have been updated with new decisions coming out of Downing Street. Before the tragedy of Aylan Kurdi, the United Kingdom had accepted only 5,000 refugees since 2011, a trifling number compared to some of its European neighbors who have taken in up to 80,000 asylum seekers.

It was the powerful image of the 3-year-old boy in a red t-shirt and black sneakers lying dead on a Turkish shore that shook the world and forced Cameron to up the numbers. First, he announced the UK would accept “thousands more” refugees, and later that solidified to 20,000 by 2020, with Cameron stressing that Britain would act with its “head and its heart.”

But ultimately what made the difference? Was it the devastating image of a Syrian child lying face down on a stone beach? The fact that the media quickly identified him: Aylan Kurdi, 3 years old, from Kobane, Syria. Or was it the outcry from millions across the world who couldn’t fathom what they were seeing, resulting in #refugeeswelcome trending on Twitter?

The answer is simple: all of the above.

Human beings relate to faces, names and stories, not to cold statistics. If there is no direct link between those suffering and an audience, then those witnessing tend to become distant and apathetic. Occasionally, we will find a minute or two to question the world and cringe at what it has become, using adjectives like “evil” and “ruthless” to describe what we are seeing, but soon after we shrug it off and go on with our lives.

It was a poster held up by a demonstrator in my hometown of Vienna that caught my eye. It read: “My nationality? Human!”

Having been born to an immigrant family and raised in Austria, I faced some racism growing up. However, my perception shifted when I watched over 20,000 demonstrators march down the streets of Vienna, demanding that their government do more to welcome refugees. It brought two things to mind. First, how far we have come from the double-standards and prejudice I encountered as a child. Second, how powerful and positive the voice of citizens can be in the midst of calamity.

The world has watched as governments react to the crisis. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was the first European leader to waive European Union (EU) rules, stating that no refugee who entered Germany would be turned away. Only a few others followed her path. However, with so much emphasis on EU governments, we forget the millions of ordinary people who have taken action to call their governments to task—they are the real drivers behind change.

European citizens are picking up where governments are falling short. They are organizing rallies and demonstrating in support of refugees, knowing that their voice will make a difference.

Icelanders campaigned for their government to accept more refugees and opened up their homes to those fleeing the Syrian War. In Germany, there was an outpouring of support, with hundreds coming to greet and help refugees arriving at train stations in Munich and Frankfurt. British citizens are signing petitions calling for the UK to take its fair share of Syrians, and many are driving vans filled with shoes, tents and other essentials to refugee camps. Recently, volunteers have launched an Airbnb for refugees that allows anyone in Europe to offer space in their homes to those fleeing wars.

It is clear: People have a strong and powerful presence and their voice is roaring.

So, while some governments and political leaders have taken the lead, such as Angela Merkel who has been dubbed the “mother of compassion,” others are sitting on the fence and waiting to see what happens next.

It is no secret that right-wing sentiments in Europe have soared in recent years. This has impacted government decisions in Britain, France and Hungary, which is one reason why many are reluctant to open their doors to Muslim refugees fleeing the Middle East.

But one demonstrator in Vienna put it best: “Governments can’t make such decisions without the will of the people.”

He is right. European and world citizens must understand that they have every right to have their say on this human catastrophe. It is up to us, the people, to seize the moment.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: /

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your  is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a .

The post European Response to Refugee Crisis Proves People Power Works appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.