Worried yet at the same time bordering on arrogance – this is how one could describe the facial expressions of four out of five leading Austrian politicians during the traditional post-vote "elephant round" when television anchors posed their questions to the assembled political elite. Why did we say "four out of five"? We shall return to that point shortly, first, however, some number crunching.

During last Sunday’s historic election in Austria, 74.9% of the Austrian electorate turned up at their respective polling station. The election resulted in the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) emerging on top with 29.2% of the public vote, followed by Chancellor Karl Nehammer's Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) scoring 26.5% and the Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ) in third place with 21%. New Austria and Liberal Forum (NEOS) came in fourth with 9%, and the Greens – The Green Alternative fifth with 8%, respectively. That was it with regards to how many political groupings managed to enter the National Council or lower house of Austria’s national parliament.

In the National Council, there are a total of 183 seats. The far-right FPÖ will get 58 of these, Conservatives 52, Social Democrats 41, Liberals 17 and Greens 15. As expected, no single party could form a one-party government and there are several coalition possibilities. One of them, which is quite unlikely, is that all four parties other than the FPÖ may unite under the ÖVP.

What do Austrians want?

"Four out of five" is vital to analyze, not just for the voting process but for the top candidates' reactions in front of the camera during the traditional elephant round. Herbert Kickl, FPÖ's leader, declared victory and promised a new era. He stated his party is going to talk with all other parties regarding potential coalition scenarios. On the one hand and unlike many fellow extreme political movements in other European countries when speaking in public, he neither shouts nor unduly argues. It almost seemed as if he took a step back from political campaigning. On the other hand, Kickl might as well have expected what the four speakers after him would have verbally in store: a combination of outright resentment paired with the thought, "What did we do wrong?"

Nehammer tried to come across as statesmanlike but focused on previous comments explaining what a coalition with the FPÖ under Kickl was and why it is ruled out. NEOS leader Meinl-Reisinger repeated she wants to see neither Kickl as Chancellor nor the FPÖ in government. SPÖ leader Andreas Babler more or less focused on his party’s bad performance and so did Werner Kogler from the Greens.

The contrast could not have been bigger when compared with the similar TV version of an elephant round, three days before the elections, where they discussed politics.

There the ÖVP focused on economic growth, and the SPÖ asked for inheritance taxation. The FPÖ stated that while they had been part of a previous government, there was a budget surplus. The Greens demanded an increase in the taxation of wealth and NEOS strictly against such a move. The SPÖ, in turn, claimed a free market approach in politics is "retro." The NEOS argued that a small country such as Austria should prefer negotiations when asked about the conflict in Ukraine. The Greens have a winning point when demanding that SUVs should not be benefiting from low taxation, the topic of climate change.

Peter Hajek and his Public Opinion Strategies Agency did a 1,200-participant telephone interview series Sept 24-28, with an error margin of 2.8%. This allows a better insight into why the voters voted for the FPÖ. Issues at stake were asylum and migration policies, high crime rates, promoting a strong Austria, a change in government, the pandemic and being against mandatory vaccinations. Hajek furthermore states that many FPÖ voters had made up their minds long ago, basically the same as traditional ÖVP, SPÖ or Greens voters. Only that all of them except for the FPÖ have dwindling numbers of core voters who stick with their party no matter what.

In a nutshell, FPÖ voters do not see climate change as a priority topic. They want a strong Austria utilizing a change in the power structure and national government. They continue to argue with the ÖVP about the pandemic period and plans for a mandatory vaccination, which was soon after being announced abolished indeed. Nevertheless, the FPÖ cleverly used the issue to present itself as the sole freedom guaranteeing movement.

Camouflaged under freedom

Eventually, two questions arise in our minds: First, are the legitimate policies of the FPÖ simply camouflaging a racist, xenophobic, anti-migration stance? Second, are all of the FPÖ voters indeed xenophobic?

The answer for the former one is, unfortunately, a clear yes. During a French TV documentary in Vienna in 2022 and the height of the anti-mandatory-vaccination phase in Austria's recent history, FPÖ speakers portrayed themselves as individual freedom fighters in the weekly rallies. Yet, once back home so to speak, those same FPÖ politicians turned anti-migrants, became outright Islamophobic and merited the label "extremist and far-right." A strategy which, as we saw last Sunday, until this very day pays off at the ballot box.

As for answering the latter question, when one engages in off-the-record conversations with Austrian citizens, as the author of these lines regularly does, and ever more so away from the capital Vienna, common Austrian citizens raise two points; the elites are distanced from them, the ordinary voters and they cannot afford our weekly grocery shopping anymore.

Hence, they vote according to their purchasing power. If a party emerges openly stating that they need a change in the power structure and a change of government, the disgruntled former mainstream clientele might just as well give the FPÖ a chance. As climate change is not a priority for those ordinary people either and as the Greens are rightly classified as climate champions even with their reduced numbers, no worries if the FPÖ has no interest in this subject. And as mainstream parties no longer provide the answers to why the weekly grocery shopping is often a minimalist affair people may tend to the extreme fringes.

Should Austria’s mainstream parties turn to populism to regain voter trust? Most definitely not. It should dismantle the hidden agenda items of those far-right populists instead and explain why a multicultural society is the best form of democracy as we know it; start by saying multiculturalism does not result in higher inflation! Hiding in their political ivory towers has led to the rise of the far-right.

Most likely a coalition of the FPÖ and the ÖVP will be the outcome as Nehammer would remain chancellor. One doubts that the ÖVP will accept a junior partner role in an FPÖ led coalition despite many topical overlaps unless Kickl resigns. Hence mainstream it is once more. And exactly that mainstream must watch out, not that five years from today the FPÖ wins an outright majority. Figuratively speaking, it is five to 12.